Special Topics in Environmental Management

4th Circuit Sides with EPA on Jobs Analysis Requirement

The impact of EPA’s Clean Power Plan and other major Clean Air Act (CAA) actions on jobs in the coal mining industry was the subject of a suit by Murray Energy Corporation and others, which asserted that the Agency did not meet its nondiscretionary duty under CAA Section 321(a) to evaluate what effects those actions have on employment.
In October 2016, a U.S. District Court judge found in favor of the plaintiffs and ordered the Agency to file a plan and schedule to meet its Section 321(a) obligation. The EPA did file a plan and schedule, which the district court rejected and, subsequently, ordered the Agency to follow a remedial plan and schedule the district court itself devised. The EPA appealed the ruling—both the finding that it had failed to meet its nondiscretionary duty and the remedial ruling—to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit. On June 29, 2017, a 4th Circuit panel found that the district court had misinterpreted Section 321(a), found in favor of the EPA, and ordered the case dismissed.

Section 321(a) Evaluations

The core of the case is in the specific language of Section 321(a), which states:

“The [EPA] Administrator shall conduct continuing evaluations of potential loss or shifts of employment which may result from the administration or enforcement of the provision of this chapter and applicable implementation plans, including where appropriate, investigating threatened plant closures or reductions in employment allegedly resulting from such administration or enforcement.”

In defending itself against the charge that it did not meet the “continuing evaluation” obligation, the Agency told the courts that it had developed 64 regulatory impact analyses, economic impact analyses, white papers, and other reports that collectively demonstrated compliance with Section 321(a) insofar as the Agency’s actions were affecting employment. But the district court responded that these documents did not comply with the section because they did not assess the actual, site-specific employment effects of CAA implementation.

No Deadline

But according to the 4th Circuit panel, the statutory language of Section 321(a) does not impose on the EPA the kind of duty the district court found in the section. The panel focused on the phrase “continuing evaluation,” which implies a “a broad, open-ended statutory mandate” that demands “the exercise of agency judgment.” Moreover, the statutory language covers all CAA actions—in the panel’s words, “the entire set of actions administering and enforcing the CAA.”

“Perhaps most importantly, the required evaluations are not confined to a discrete time period, but instead are to be conducted on a continuing basis,” said the panel. “The open-ended nature of Section 321(a)’s command is further confirmed by what the statute does not say. Section 321(a) calls for evaluations without, for the most part, specifying guidelines and procedures relevant to those evaluations. Furthermore, Section 321(a) establishes no start-dates, deadlines, or any other time-related instructions to guide the EPA’s continuous evaluation efforts.”

Considerable Discretion

“The EPA is thus left with considerable discretion in managing its section 321(a) duty,” concluded the panel. “The agency gets to decide how to collect a broad set of employment impact data, how to judge and examine this extensive data, and how to manage these tasks on an ongoing basis. A court is ill-equipped to supervise this continuous, complex process.”

The panel backed up this view by noting that other sections of the CAA do have discrete directives accompanied by specific guidance on matters of content, procedure, and timing. “Section 321(a) fails to offer such clear instructions that could serve as a solid basis for judicial review,” said the panel.

Accordingly, the panel vacated the district court’s opinion and ordered it to dismiss Murray’s suit.

Connect with Us

Free Resources

Check out the results of BLR’s OSHA Recordkeeping Standard and Electronic Submission Survey sponsored by Sphera. The survey sheds light on how companies are faring in response to OSHA’s upcoming 1904 recordkeeping rule updates and what solutions are expected to help them with electronic submission. Highlighted findings from the poll of over 400 survey participants include […]

Check out our recent survey and its accompanying report, both sponsored by eCompliance®, to get insight into how safety professionals and their companies are encouraging employees to actively participate in safety initiatives. The study illustrates the diverse opinions within the safety field regarding such issues as implementing behavior-based vs. participation-based programs, measuring safety participation, and […]

The Supply Chain and Sustainability Survey sponsored by Avetta® was launched in mid-April 2017 and surveyed 379 environmental, health, and safety (EHS) professionals. Respondents shared their insights into how their companies are managing the safety risks that naturally occur in supply chains. Download the report today and see what our respondents had to say!

This survey and its companion report, sponsored by the American Heart Association, sought to understand how organizations are approaching First Aid, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), and automated external defibrillator (AED) training. We found out: The Importance of First Aid/CPR/AED training within companies The top reason for offering First Aid/CPR/AED training How employee’s reacted to this training […]

OSHA Challenge

On Monday, August 21, 2017, all of North America will be treated to an eclipse of the sun. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) projects that the longest duration of the total eclipse of the sun will be near:

Safety Solutions Showcase

Safety Decisions Magazine

A quarterly magazine offering a fresh look at the strategic issues that challenge safety executives in today’s ever-changing business arena. Read the latest edition today.

Safety Training

Compliance will only take you so far with injury prevention. To achieve world-class safety performance on and off-the-job you must address the human factors that are involved in the majority of incidents and injuries. Learn how SafeStart fits within your existing safety system to reduce injuries 24/7